Hello Stephan, Tony,
Thank you for your reviews.
On 05/22/2013 05:34 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> [130522 08:32]:
On 05/22/2013 08:27 AM, Florian Vaussard wrote:
Define the OMAP_GPIO macro to conveniently use GPIO inside OMAP DT.
For example:
gpios = <&gpio6 3 0>; /* GPIO 163 */
can be replaced by
gpios = OMAP_GPIO(163, 0);
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/gpio/omap-gpio.h
b/include/dt-bindings/gpio/omap-gpio.h
+#define OMAP_GPIO_0_BANK gpio1
+#define OMAP_GPIO_1_BANK gpio1
+#define OMAP_GPIO_2_BANK gpio1
+#define OMAP_GPIO_3_BANK gpio1
There are a /lot/ of those. Is this really worth it?
If the OMAP GPIO HW is already represented as a bunch of separate DT
nodes which represent separate GPIO blocks, then I would have thought
the syntax <&gpioN M 0> more directly represents what would be found in
the HW manual? If not, surely the DT should have a single node to
represent a single GPIO controller, which just happens to internally
support a bunch of register arrays.
Yes I agree, let's not go back to numbering anything except within the
a single instance. If anything, we can put the gpio number into comments.
From a board point a view, I consider this macro as being easier to use,
than having to perform the necessary arithmetic to get the bank + offset
for each GPIO when converting existing boards or developing new ones.
But I also agree with you, and I was sad not to find a more elegant
way. Maybe someone with better preprocessor skills could come up with
a better solution?
Regards,
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
